“知识”抑或“理解”:认识究竟向我们承诺了什么?  

"Knowledge" or "Understanding": What does the Cognition Promise to Us?

作　　者：姬志闯[1] 

机构地区：[1]河南大学哲学与公共管理学院,河南开封475004

出　　处：《河南大学学报（社会科学版）》2013年第4期29-33,共5页Journal of Henan University(Social Sciences）

基　　金：国家社会科学基金项目"纳尔逊.古德曼哲学与当代美国哲学的话语转换"(09CZX026)阶段性成果;河南大学青年骨干教师项目"纳尔逊.古德曼哲学研究"(2010)阶段性成果

摘　　要："知识"历来被人们视为认识目标和成就的标识,并因此构成了传统认识论的主题。然而,以之为主题的传统认识论却没有为其生成和确证提供令人信服的说明,而且,其概念本身也存在着模糊性、狭隘性和实践价值关涉的缺失等问题,并因此而动摇和瓦解了其地位的合法性。基于对"知识"困境及其背后的本体论、认识论框架的反思和批判,N.古德曼和C.Z.埃尔金建议用范围更加宽泛、实用性更强也更符合认知实践的"理解"来替代"知识",这样不仅在"构造主义"语境中实现了对"认识"本身及其目标和成就的重构,而且也因为对认识论主题的重置而肇始了从"知识"到"理解"的认识论转向。＂Knowledge＂ is considered as the identification of the aim and achievement of cognition and thus constitutes the subject of the traditional epistemology. However, the traditional epistemology which considered knowledge as its subject did not provide convinced illustration for its generation and confirmation. In addition, this concept has defects of conceptual fuzziness, narrowness and the deficiency of the involving in the practice and value, and thus shook and collapsed the validity of this position. Based on rethinking and criticizing the ＂knowledge＂ dilemma and the ontology, epistemology behind it, Goodman and Elgin suggest to use ＂understanding＂ which is more universal, applicable and fitful to the cognitive practice to replace ＂knowledge＂. This not only reconstructs the cognition and its aim and achievement through the context of ＂constructionism＂, but also starts the turn from ＂knowledge＂ to ＂understanding＂ of epistemology.

关 键 词：认识 知识 理解 认识论转向 

分 类 号：B01-07[哲学宗教—哲学理论]